to establish the minimal government that they want to put in power, i'd go in my backyard, and i'd grow toe tomatoes for te rest of my life, and i wouldn't have to go to the grocery store and buy the tomatoes the state is making me too busy to grow. i would love that. so i don't have an argument with most libertarians. i'd love to see their government. if they got their government, they wouldn't see me again. >> host: wendy mcelroy is the author of "the art of being free." ..

>> guest: its justice, a valid response, and i can't help but raise fists in the air, but the fact of the matter is we want to live free, and we want to know how to grow tomatoes in lib rty, and like our neighbors and be valuable members of the community. to some degree, i'd rather be a good neighbor than a good libertarian. there's not a conflict there, but if i had to choose, it's a good neighbor. >> host: wendy mcelroy, t author of "the art of being free," and you're watching c-span2. >> host: now from the archives, the history of the boston tea party which occurred on 1773.

the author reports that the demonstration against the british collection of import duties was composed of smugglers and tax evaders led by lawyer james ottis jr. and brewer sam adams. they recount the protest spread throughout the country including assaults that spurredded george washington to proclaim the protesters vandals. this about 50 # -- 50 # minutes. >> there is nothing so easy but to persuade people they are badly governed. those words were spoken by the brilliant 18th century massachusetts governor thomas hutchenson, and i'll tell you more about him later. let me tell you what else he said because the words hold true today as much as they did then in 1774. governor hutchenson said you can take the happiest and most

comfortable people and use malicious, rhetorical skills to arouse popular discontent with their government, with their rulers, with everything around them, even themselves. this is one of the weaknesses, he said, these are his words "one of the weaknesses of human nature of which ambitious politicians make you to serve their purposes." i year before he uttered those words, a group of boston rebel rowsers convinced americans they were miserable, and to quote hitchenson again, "those who think they are misrabble are so despite real evidence to the contrary." now, i doubt if there's a single one of today's tea party patriots who knew what the original tea party and tea party movement were about. far from being patriots, the original tea partyers were

smugglers. some of them, among the wealthiest men in america, merchants, among them, john hancock, yes, thee bold john hancock on the declaration of independence whose name is synonymous with signature. long before that, he was arguably the wealthiest merchant banker in america living on beacon hill with a commanding view of the massachusetts landscape and sea scape. far from espousing individual liberty, hancock and his fellow merchants in new england, governed their businesses and communities with economic ruthlessness that often left their competitors homeless and penniless.

like today's tea party movement, the colonial tea party had almost nothing to do with tea. tea was nothing more than a social beverage for wealthy women. men seldom draping it, and it ranked below ail and rum among beverages americans consumed most. the tea party movement that sparked the american revolution actually began 20 years earlier in the 1750s and 1760s when new england business leaders like today's tea party supported a costly government war, but refused to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of that war. the war had started in the early 1750s when over population in the east, especially the northeast, sent british settlers pouring over the appalachian mountains into what was then french territory.

france, at the time, claimed all of canada, the lands around the great lakes, the lands around, on either side of the ohio and mississippi river valleys, down to the gulf of mexico. in 1753, the governor of virginia sent a young major named george washington, and most americans don't know this story. the governor of virginia sent 21-year-old major george washington to fort ducane, a french fort that sat on the site of present day pittsburgh, before the steelerrings -- steelers started playing football there. washington ordered french to leave. french refused. in the following spring, washington returned with troops and attacked. again, most americans don't know the story, but washington fired the first shot in what became the world's first true world

war. his attack on the french in the western pennsylvania wilderness grew into a global conflict lasting seven years, involve england, franch, austria, russia, prussia, and dozen other nations fighting for control over colonies in north america, africa, asia, and the seas in between. the seven years war changed the map of the world shifting national borders in europe, in africa, in india, and elsewhere. it leveled thousands of towns and villages in europe. killed or maimed more than a million soldiers and civilians, and bankrupted a dozen nations including england and france. remember, it started in britain's north american colonies, and the british government and british people

naturally thought british subjects in british north america should share the costs of the war with their fellow citizens in britain. in fact, the government raised property taxes so high in britain that farmers rioted in protest and demanded that americans pay their fair share of the war. in 17 # 64, the british government extended to the colonies a stamp tax that everyone in britain had been paying for more than 70 years. it amounted to next to nothing for the average citizen, a pepny or two or a stamp attached to legal documents, publications, and the packages of non-essential products like playing cards. the harshest effects of this tax, however, were on members of three powerful special interest groups. they had them back then too. these three groups were the merchants, publishers, and lawyers.

the merchants had to put a stamp on every purchase order, on every bill of sale, publishers had to put a stamp on every newspaper and magazine. lawyers had to put a stamp on every legal document, deeds, wills, and such. two clever political bos tone -- toesenin -- boston men saw a chance to make money and gain power to protest the stamp tax. many workers were left after the end of the seven years war. to win some public support for the protest, they cult their activities under the banner of constitutional rights. they claimed that americans had no representation in parliament, and that for parliament to tax them without such representation was a violation of the british

constitution. they were under these mobs, under the secret pay of the merchants and newspaper publishers. adams and ottis sent the mobs to terrorize britain's water front. they attackedded tax collectors, burned their homes, prevented ships from landing, gradually, they closed the water front and closed boston to almost all british ships. adams then wrote to political leaders in other coastal cities. he was absolutely filled with a sense of power, and he wanted to gain more. he convinced political leaders and other cities to follow suit. he soon sent harbor fronts up and down the coast a roaring riot and gained a national representation as a great revolutionary leader. merchants, meanwhile, stopped

importing british goods. within months, british manufacturers and exporters absorbed huge financial losses. british trade fell by 50%. the british merchants, the british exporters demanded that parliament repeal the stamp tax in america to restore trade relations. in 1765, parliament did just that and turned sam adams and james ottis into heros in boston and elsewhere in america. just who were the heros? well, both were from wealthy families, and, like, many sons of wealthy new englanders, they were harvard graduates. we all make mistakes. [laughter] if they had gone to yale, they would have behaved themselves, gone out and gotten decent jobs. [laughter] adams was the son of boston's largest brewer. you still see the name, but the

current sam adams beer has nothing to do with the original brewery. his father died when sam was 36, and until then, sam was too lazy to earn a living on his own, so he it to take control of the brewery running it quickly into bankruptcy, and he allowed the family mansion to deteriorate. he was unconcerned with earning money. he married, fathered two children, and after his wife's death, this champion of liberty bought himself a slave and raised his children in abject poverty. friends of the power found him as cynical, and a job as a city tax collector to earn enough to feed his children and slavings but within a short time, his lemingers showed a shortage of 8,000 pounds representing tax moneys he had either failed to collect or had embezzled, and he was later convicted of

embezzlement. as for otis, a young lawyer who was deeply humiliated when the royal governor failed to appoint his father, james otis senior, as chief justice of the colony because of a clear conflict of interest. young otis grew irrational swearing to undermind the government in retaliation. i shall set the province in flame, even if i die in attempt, he shouted. as his anger festered, he edged towards insanity, wandering into a boston tavern frequented by british officers to provoke a fight. well, he got it. an officer cut him over the head with the broadside of the sword. he he recovered from the physical wound, he drifted in and out of insanity the rest of his life, occasionally poking his head out the window and fire in the park at unseen british

enemies. one time he wandered into the state assembly, drew his sword, and challenged the prime minister of england to come to boston and fight a dual. eventually, friends tied him down in a chair and carried him to the insane asylum. despite adam's depravity and otis's insanity, the protests left adams in command of a powerful force of armed thugs in boston, but the repeal of the stamp act left them choking from economic problems. the british government remained bankrupt with a large army in america to protect americans without any financial support from the americans. british chancellor of the exchequer, charlestownsend, equivalent to our secretary of treasury, had a game to counter the argument of taxation without

representation. he would no longer tax americans, but the goods britain shipped to america, glass, led, paints, paper, and tea. he reasoned duties will be less painful for ordinary americans who could avoid paying them by using home made substitutes. farmers and their families, and they -- 95% of americans then were living on farms -- farmers and families already produced most of their own clothes, their own pottery, wooden utensils, tools, and many other things they needed. the people most affected by import duties were the wealthy who loved their beautiful british and european furniture and furnishings, their wines and their fancy gourmet food. when the british imposed duties to pay for the war, the duties affected the richest colonials, not the poor or the middle

classes. it affectedded those who were profiting most for the war, the ship owners, the merchants, the bankers. although the townsend act duties did not upset ordinary americans, they infuriated the ship owners who resolved to evade the taxes by smuggling. they didn't decide to smuggle because they were patriots. they decided to smuggle out of greed for profits. the proof of their motives, the proof of the motives became evident to everyone when the british finally won the war against the french in north america. as british troops combed through the wreckage of french fortifications, they found most of the french weapons had been smuggled through british naval blockades by the same new england ship owners who had been carrying military supplies to the british army.

in other words, british subjects, these merchants, were smuggling arms to both sides in the war, to the enemy, swelts -- as well as their own army. to cloak their treason, the smugglers transformed themselves into outspoken patriots claiming they didn't oppose taxes as long as they had a vote in establishing tax laws. although that reads very well in today's history books for chirp, the argument was nonsense. it was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now. few taxpayers in england had any representation in parliament. you couldn't vote if you didn't own property. only 1 million of the 9 million adult males in britain were entitled to vote. now, fair or unfair, the makeup of parliament didn't alter britain's need for money to pay for the war or the obligation of every citizen to pay for the war

to pay taxes. the wealthyist profited handsomely with the war without paying for its costs, and when the same merchants began smuggling to evade taxes, the british government felt fully justifieded in cracking down. still puffedded up with pride from the try -- triumph, sam adams coaxed the merchants into another wave of protest. marching under liberty, thugs swarmed the streets, burning home of opponents, and dragging those loyal to the legitimate government to what the thugs called a liberty tree, to be stripped, swabbed in scalding tar, and feathered, and hung to a branch and subjected to

agonies and other troops marched into boston to crush rioters, they retaliated by launching a nationwide boycott. within a year, exports to america fell by 50%, and as they had during the stamp act crisis, the british merchants forced parliament to repeal the townsend act to restore trade with america. unfortunately, parliament acted too slowly to avoid the famed boston massacre. the presence of troops in boston streets had the population that unruly elements turned the red coat soldiers into targets, first of insults, then snowballs, then stones, and other missiles. a troop of red coats retaliated and fired rifles into a threatening mob one night, killing five civilians, all of them who turned out to be sam

adams' thugs from the water front. nonetheless, it threatened to become a city wide riot, and to prevent a real civil war there, governor thomas hutchenson immediately ordered the officer and the soldiers involved in the incident jailed and brought to trial for murder. defending them were none other than the respected american lawyers, joe -- josiah and quincy. they were not tories, but local farmers. they voted unanimously to acquit the officer and four of the soldiers. they found the other two soldiers guilty of justifiable manslaughter, a little more than a misdemeanor. just as important, though, the trial exposed the role of sam adams and james otis, jr., in

insighting the mob, and boston citizens decided they had had enough of this, enough violence and enough of sam adams, voting him out of office and sent otis back to the insane asylum. the army command felt the same way. their troops, they said, came to america to fight the enemies of the colonists, not the colonists, themselves, who were, after all, their own countrymen. the army pulled out of boston, and peace returned to boston, and the rest of the colonies. the troubles between britain and her colonists should have ended then and there with everyone living happily ever after under the union jack. except, except for one tiny irritant remaining in the economic relationship with the mother land. in repealing the townsend duties, a small group of angry

parliamentarians decided they needed to retain some symbol of what they insisted was parliaments absolute authority to tax all british subjects with or without their concerns. although parliament yielded to all demands of the americans, its majority felt it had to retain at least one of the townsend duties as a symbol of authority so it retained the smallest, most innocuous one, the one on tea. wow. what a close -- colossal miscalculation. as i said before, it was nothing more than a woman's social beverage in the homes. few americans drank a cup of a tea a day, and in any case, the tax on tea was negligent, one tenths of a penny for a nine penny cup, that's a tax of one

one hundredth of 1%, but as thomas put it, from so small a spark, a great fire was kindled. its flames would eventually destroy a great empire and spark the rise of the other from its ashes. as you may have guessed, even the small tea tax cult into the profits of america's largest tea importers so they resumed smuggling, and, of course, british custom officials tightened enforcement, and after the british seized one of john hancock's ships for nonpayment of duties, hancock reopened the cash drawer to sam adams, and adams sent paid thugs to vandalize and destroy the shops and homes of anyone who sold or drank imported tea from britain or even reported by someone as having drunk some tea so if your

neighbor hated you, call somebody over and say he's drinking british tea, and your house would be burn down. the tea boycott spread to other cities, down the coast to new york, philadelphia, charleston, and other ports. this was the original tea party movement. it was not patriotic. it was not pretty or glorious. the furry climaxed thursday, december 16th, 1773, just before kris christmas, and the dumping of a million dollars worth of british tea. the people who dumped them amounted to about six or seven dozen men, nobody knows exactly how many were there. it was dark. many disguised themselves as indians. ironically, the white colonist

who slaughtered indians on site, disguised themselves as indians baa they regarded them as a symbol of freedom. this unleashed a social, political, and economic upheaval they would never again be able to control. the tea party provoked a reign of terror in boston and other american cities with american inflicting unimaginable bar bareties on each other. they dumped ships, boston staged a second tea party a few months after the first one. the mobs showed no dissent, burning homes of anyone they suspected of favoring british rule and sent their dreaded imitation of the inacquisition coach to the doors of citizens who dared voice support for their church, their king, their

country, and their legitimate establishment government, the squeaking wooden tip cart arrived at dawn, and its drivers broke down doors, dragging shreking victims from their bed. a jeering mob awaited them to strip them, tar and feather them, and hang them with a rope around their waist around a branch to be scorned, beaten, and humiliated. it was not a fight for liberty or freedom, but a war over british subjects over the extent of state authority and the rights of the individual. independents did not end that conflict. the colonial tea party, and those who supported them, were essentially libertarians who had built businesses, carved out farms from the wilderness, on their own, without government help, and they were not about to share profits of their labor

with any government or any government tax collectors. independence did not change matters. almost immediately after britain recognized our independence, farmers across the nation, in massachusetts, new hampshire, maryland, virginia, began rioting against government taxation. this time, taxation by their own elected governments in each state. it was the same conflict between the collective rights of the state, the authority of the state, versus the rights of the individual. taxation by any state, by any government, invariably deprives the individual of some of his property, forcing him to contribute involuntarily to his communities' defense and other essential services, and sometimes non-essential services. postal service an essential government function or can private industry do a better

job? does public transport an essential government service, or should we leave it in private hands? these are question we still debate. ratification of the constitution and creation of a federal government answered some of these questions, and calmed things down a bit, they erupted again into all-out civil war in the mid 19th century when many americans felt the federal government had usurped state and local powers. yes, slavery was central to the civil war, but northerners tend to oversimplify the nature of that conflict. even americans who oppose slavery in the north as well as the south, supported e -- emancipation, and realized with ul its good intentions remitted government con my accusation of property. hard to think of human beings as property, but they were. the civil war didn't end that

conflict, but it flaired up in the civil rights movement in the 20th century when the federal government essentially usurped authority over education, and, again in the vietnam war when the executive usurped authority to lead the nation to war, and the debate continues today with the emergence of a modern tea party movement trying to halt and even reverse expanding federal government intrusion into our daily lives. what one man defines as government intrusion, another man defines as an essential subsidy for the national economy. i'm sure that farmers, if you ask a farmer today or a highway engineer or an oil man, the definition of a boondoggle, they

will not say agriculture subsidies for the oil industry or subsidies for highway construction. we can only hope that the growing tea party movement today doesn't divide the nation and produce the conflict it did in the 18th century. at the time, ms. chief justice described the horrors produced in the memoirs. the tarring and feathering and riots reigned uncontrolled. the liberty of the press was restrained by the very men alieuing for liberty. those printers inclined to support government were threatened, their presses destroyed, and all this uproar arose from the selfish designs of the merchants, mock patriots who disguisedded views by mouthing it for liberty, and who

are willing to sacrifice everything for money. the turmoil of the colonial tea party movement stripped tens of thousands of americans of their dignity, their homes, their properties, and their birthrights, and in the name of liberty and independence. nearly 100,000 americans left the land of their forefathers forever in what was history's largest exodus of americans from america. untold thousands who refused to leave their native land fled west ward into the dangerous wilderness to start life anew under new identities. among those forced to flee to england, be buried in foreign soil was the last royal governor of massachusetts, thomas hutchenson, whose fore bearerrers arrived in america in 1634 including the agreed religious leader, anne

hutchenson. he adored this country. it belonged to him as much as sam adams. more so, he served this country, its government, its wars. sam adams had never done that. before hutchenson died, he wrote these words, "i am sometimes tempted to endeavor to forget i'm an american and turn my views from my native to what remains of life in england, but my passion for my native country returns, and though i know not how to reason upon it, i feel a fondness to lay my bones in my native american soil." justice peter oliver, also from an old american family also fled to england and lies buried there. george washington and other respected american leaders

across the country condemned the boston tea party as vandals, and they might well have ended in jails and faded into obscurity had the british government not responded so rashly and so violently by sending troops back to boston. by quartering troops in private homes, of loyalists as well as rebels, the british military command seemed to declare war against all americans, and that provoked almost the entire massachusetts citizenry into open rebellion. lexington followed with americans discovering the importance of the individual's right to bear arms. then came bunker hill and that was followed by a declaration of independence by the massachusetts legislature. virginia followed suit after patrick henry's stirring call for liberty or death, and a declaration of war against britain. his call echoeded across the

continue innocent and roused so many americans that on july 4 #th, 1776, all 13 states declared independence from britain. who were those original tea party? who were the men on the ships? who set off the explosion that sparked a revolution and helped bring down one empire and create another? who boarded those ships and dumpedded the tea in boston harbor? sam adams, hancock? at the time, they swore never to reveal each other's names to prevent their arrest for treason and immediate death on the gallows. while their names remain secret for decades after the tea party, but they are now listed in my new book. [laughter] i believe the list will surprise you. one irony of the tea party, however, is that none of those

who dumped tea into boston harbor rose to prominence in the government of the nation that emerged from the revolution, and that's because of the kind of men who lead revolutions and destroy governments, the rogues, the sam adams in america, seldom have the qualities needed to organize and build a new government or nation. they never nurture. their instincts are to destroy, to kill. a second irony of the revolution that the tea party sparked is that instead of the eliminating taxation, it increased it 10,000 fold. suddenly, local governments had to pay for the cost of defense, law enforcement, postal services, and all the other government services that the british government had paid for before independence. instead of paying a small, single duty on tea, massachusetts imposed huge

duties on every product that passed through its ports and collected it. apart from the cost of the tea that was lost in the tea party, that was dumped overboard, the boston tea party was undoubtedly the most costly tea party in world history. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. i'll be happy to answer your questions. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm happy to answer any questions, and the gentleman there will have a microphone for you to be heard across the nation and across the world. don't think. >> where did tar and feathering originate? in europe or in the colonies -- >> tar and feathering. >> oh, that originated here as far as i know.

it was not a custom in england. yes, sir? >> was there any organized support, the colonyies -- >> support for -- >> loyalists supporting the crown? >> oh, yes, across the nation, at least one-third of the population. only days before the actual declaration of independence, john dickinson offered the olive branch petition to the king pledging our american loyalty to the king, love for the king,

love of being british subjects and simply asking for him to control the parliament and let us raise our own taxes and keep parliament out of our business. had he accepted the olive branch petition, we'd probably have become a member of the british commonwealth. there was tremendous amount of loyalty and loyalty forces. there was a major battle that is not often mentionedded, prejudice or what, but a major battle at moore's creek, north carolina, not far from wilmington, north carolina. a british fleet was going to land soldiers at wilmington, and an army formed inland, marching towards the coast to join up with the british regulars. a force that were rebels, but what we call patriots, intercepted them and massacred

them at moore's creek, which is -- a blind gull issue where rebels were wait r for them to wipe them out. without the loyalists support, the british troops couldn't land keeping the south free of british control for a few years until they landed at charleston. yes, sir? >> you mentioned that the boston tea party spread south to new york and to other cities. almost sounds as though were the network of people who were having the same thought or inspired one way or the another or working together. i never thought of the boston tea party as being that, but is that really -- >> yes. sam adams set up because there was no other form of communication, set up a series of committees of correspondence

in every major city in the country. they started communicating with each other, and that's how word was passed. that's how we eventually decided on a continue thenal congress for all the committee members to meet in philadelphia and discuss independence. >> was tea party in new jersey -- was that before -- >> sorry, i can't hear you. >> the tea party in new jersey, wasn't that -- didn't that happen before the boston tea party? >> which tea party? >> the one in new jersey. >> no, afterwards. >> afterwards? >> yeah. that was another tea party. they dumped a ship in new jersey, which most people never heard of, and i never did until i did research on this book.

[laughter] it's along the delaware river opposite philadelphia. yes, ma'am? >> could you talk about what sources used for writing the book? are they new ones or reinterpretations or -- >> well, nothing is new. the sources are almost endless, equivalent to three of those shelf over there. obviously, the diaries and writings of john adams, the writings of john adams are, i think, seven volumes, and the diaries are four volumes. the writings of sam ad. adams, and thomas hutchenson, all prolific writers, kept diaries issue and kept all the correspondence so it's a rich pool of research. yes, sir?

>> all this information disclosed, why was it dormant for so long? >> well, it's not dormant, it's there in bits and pieces, and the problem with american history -- i think i can generalize all american history, but certainly, the history of the colonial, revolutionary war and post revolutionary war era is that it's very complex, and as my son, at 14, came home from school and said, you know, something, dad, american history, all they do is talk. there's not a lot of action. all they do is talk. well, he's right, and the talk is very complex on very, very complex issues that my philosops and political philosophers debated for many, many years.

this involved enormously important cop sents that had implications for the entire world, the define right of kings. the define right of aristocrats. slavery, itself. the rights of the individual. this was the age of enlightenment, and our revolution cull m nateed the -- -- cullculminated the thinkers in e western world how they were debating the rights of the individual, what they called the natural rights of the individual. were all american born with equal rights opposed to the define rights of kings? these were very, very complicated issues, and against all of this thought into a history book this think that an adolescent gets through in 26

weeks, whatever the length of the school year, it's impossible. it's impossible. the authors of american history and text that americans grow up studying, have to condense it, and make it really, simplistic. yes, sir? >> have you started another project that you could -- have you started another project that you can relate to us now what you're writing your next book, sir? >> bring on these other books. [laughter] my next book, actually, my next book is going to have very, very small readership. it's about one who is the french playwright who was also a brilliant inventer, thinker, brilliant spy, and a great libertarian, and he organized convincing the french king that

supported the american revolution, the french could undermind and weaken their traditional army, britain, who beat the pants off of them in the seven years war, and he was responsible for organizing the dummy corporations that, in france, that shipped certain -- stair tip,ly, from the war, useless arms, shippedded them here to the american rebels, and, indeed, he was responsible for the surprise victory at saratoga. the arms had arrived in portsmith, just in time, carrieded overland, and they were about to beat us, and suddenly, this flow of arms came, and we were able to turn the war around. he was -- the book is called "the improbable patriot," but my next book directly on this

period will come on about a year, and it's called "the seven pillars of power," and it's how george washington took this vaguely defined office, the presidency, and turned it into what many now call the imperial presidency. he did this on his own. people credit hamilton, but it was he, george washington. yes, sir? >> you mentioned the name john hancock in connection with the boston tea party, and john hancock, i take it, the leading mother chapter, perhaps in the colony. what was his part in the boston tea party? >> well, he was -- he wanted no part of it. he wanted to continue smuggling and making money. he was arguably the wealthiest banker. there was no hard currency in the hemisphere at the time, so

fer chants, everything on barter, and merchants, large merchants like hancock would provide, seed, or tools to, say, a farmer or a smaller merchant, and against, for example, the farmer's crop in the spring, futures, and that's why they were falled merchant bankers because they were lending money. they were doing role of the modern merchant. his uncle built the business, and the house of hancock was the largest merchant bank in america. now suddenly, these rioters were all over the place, and they are threatening any merchant who does business with england, and he tried to strait l the rogue longs he could, but as the mobs

became more and more powerful and begin burning down the mansions, they burned down the mansion of thomas hutchenson, and thomas hutchenson's father was a merchant banker, and it was one of the most beautiful homes in america designed by jones, with a magnificent top, and burned the house from top to bottom. one of the riders in the diary described how the coupe la fell to the ground, but they destroyeded scripts that went back to america's founding. hutchenson, i don't want to call an amateur historian, after all, a governor and brilliantly educated man and advanced degrees in history, and he wrote, and this is still available, a three volume history of massachusetts from its very beginnings, but the

documents to support that history, original self-incriminates from the time of -- scripts from the time of the early landings were all destroyed by rioters. hancock didn't want that to happen to himself, and he tried to make peace with sam adams, and sat on the fence as long as he could, and then he had to join, had to give money to support adams and become -- he decided it would be more advantageous to take control of the rebel movement, which he eventually did, and when massachusetts declared independence, he was elected first governor of massachusetts, putting him in control of the massachusetts independence movement, and forced sam adams into the background. sam adams went to the constitutional convention, and he was there for two, i think,

two, possibly three terms, but never, again, was a figure of importance in either national or mass history. he became governor of massachusetts. he was vice governor during hap cock's last term at the beginning of the 19th century. hancock died, went to the governorship, elected for one term, and then he died, but he never again had any importance in american politics or state politics. >> we have time for one more question. >> wait for the microphone, please. >> what was the relationship between sam and john adams? >> well, obviously, they knew each other at the continental congress. they both served in the

continental congresses so they knew each other there, but john adams was a staunch conservative , and adams was a firey radical. when sam ad 78 -- adams got to the congress, most of the congress, they were not called "congressmen," but the delegates there, gradually isolated him and the other radicals and had little to do in the continental congress' at the beginning of the war or during the war, and, indeed, sam adamsing couldn't organize his own business and own home. he had no place in the continue thenal congress, and john hancock was elected president of the continental -- first president was payton randolph, got sick in three or four months, and john hancock was the first effective president of the congress, and when the articles of confederation were signed, he

remained president of the congress, and the first president of the united states, in fact, if not in title, and he was brilliant administrator, one has to be to run the kind of business he did. he was a brilliant administrator, helping washington win the war, a difficult team trying to organize the purchase and of arms and material because congress had no right to tax, had no powers to tax so hancock had to send embasaries to europe to get loans, and he was very successful at doing it. well, thank you, again, ladies and gentlemen. [applause]

now joining us gwen on booktv is senator rand paul. his second book, "government bullies," senator, who are the bullies? >> guest: well all throughout

your government, there's 41 different agencies who carry firearms now in the government. well, i don't mind the police or the fbi. well, the department of agriculture has a swat team, fish and wildlife have a swat team. in fact, the fish and wildlife raided gibson guitar with guns drawn, took all computer equipment and their wood, and they didn't let them know what they were accused for for a year, but when they accused them of something, it was breaking a foreign regulation, a law in india, accused of breaking and penalized in the u.s. for breaking a law in india. those are the stories we write about. >> host: how come we have not heard about that before? >> guest: some of you have hear. one of them is the case of john and judy, they were selling bunnies in a little down of nixa, missouri, fined $90,000 for having the wrong permit. the government said, hey, pay on the website, $9 o ,000, but if

you don't pay, in 30 days, you owe us $3.1 million. this is the stuff that your government's going to bull disguised people, and we frankly think it needs to stop. they are doing the same with taking people's land and saying you can't build it on it because it's a wetland, even though there's no water or stream or pond on the land. >> as a senator, what can you do to change policy? >> we've looked at some of these things, and we now constructed legislation to try to fix them. like on the wetlands, we say the clean water act says you can't discharge pollutants into waters. i don't have a problem with that, but your backyard is not navigable water and dirt is not a pollutant. we have to redefine the clean water agent people are not in prison for putting dirt in their backyards. that's been happening. a woman in southern mississippi got 84 months in prison without

parole for putting clean dirt on her own land. >> senator, when you talk to your colleagues about the incidents, what do you hear? >> some are horrified, about eight of them, who signed on and co-sponsored my bill to fix it. the other 92, i don't know what they think about, but when you tell the american people how the government is harassing, abusing, and embasaries prisoning people for selling raw milk, go to an am mental anguish farmer -- amish farmers, arrest the, threatened with jail, because they sell milk to their neighbors. >> senator paul, will you take these issues nationwide? >> we're going to be talking about it everywhere anywhere listens because we think government has gotten out of control. government's run amuck, and government's become a bully. someone's got to stand up to a bully. >> november 2012, post-election, what did the 2012 elections

clarify for you? >> what we as republicans need to do something to grow as a party. we're in danger of being a dinosaur if we don't figure out what people want in the west coast, new england, great lakes. they are solid blue. if we don't figure it out, we're not winning again as a party. >> what do you think they want? >> they are conservative. think we should balance the budget, but we shouldn't be at war everywhere all the time. i think they want a little more tolerance policy as far as putting people in prison for possession of marijuana. i think they'd like to see more local judges care for that, less prison time. i'm not in favor of encouraging people to use marijuana, but i also don't think we should put people in jail for it either. >> this is your second book. we did a long form interview on the first book. you can watch that at booktv.org, just put "rand paul" into the search function. the premise of that first book? >> the first book was the tea

party goes to washington. it was about the tea party movement. i think it was an extraordinary movement, probably the biggest movement to happen in politics in the country in 40 years. a lot of people were showing up. hundreds of thousands of people showed up at rallies issue and it really transformed the way we think about things in the sense that people began to question whether or not the law that was passed by washington, obamacare, one big example, whether laws were constitutional. whether the constitution gave the government power to do certain things. this had not come up really since the 1930s. >> again, the elections -- >> i don't want to talk about 2012. i'm tired of 2012. talk about the future. now, 2012 of not good for us, and we are going to have to figure out a way to appeal to a bigger electorat. >> are you running for president? >> ha, that's classified. i can't -- you're cleerches -- clearance is not high enough to hear about that. no, i wa